- 0 Posts
- 196 Comments
17·15 days agoTesting superscript syntax: 10-9
10^-9^
So this is how the furry subculture started
OK Google set a reminder 10 years from now to remind that gal/guy of ralph
I’m not the same person, I just saw someone responding to kindness with discouragement, and humanity really doesn’t need that right now.
WTF is wrong with you. A stranger pours out their heart for you and you just stomp on it? Have the decency to just shut up and ignore it instead of going out of your way to be an asshole.
So you’re agreeing. “one does not simply stop, because one needs to be really sure that they want to stop for some reason or another”. The desire to stop doesn’t come from nothing, yet it’s the vital ingredient for stopping successfully. Unless you have it, stopping is really hard.
The contents of your message aren’t a “no”, they’re a “yes, and”
52·1 month agoWhat was the problem? I can see that if you don’t get past one of the steps described in the wiki, then you’re blocked. But I think if one has some experience with shell, CLIs and TUIs, it should be possible to follow the steps until you have a bootable system.
Is it worth it to try that, maybe through multiple attempts? Idk.
Both things can be true at the same time. E.g. people sometimes are worked up thinking about some strawman they are discussing against in their head. So when I don’t virtue signal enough that I’m on their team or at least not against entirely against every single thing they stand for, those people sometimes take a very clear and to the point thing I say or ask and misconstrue it into meaning some horrific, morally objectionable thing.
Like, when people say that burning kittens on BBQs is a huge problem that we need to band together against, and I reply that I doubt that this is a widespread enough or well enough organized phenomenon that banding together would be effective, they take it as me admitting that I’m pro kitten-burning.
Sure, I failed to coddle them and front my opinion with how abhorrent those kitten burners are, but also nothing I said implied that in the slightest. I just thought that didn’t need mentioning, why say something so obvious?
Do you do that every two years?
For me it’s less often, but otherwise same.
Twitter (now “X”)
Yes, and tar works the same, it just doesn’t handle zip files.
And even if we’re pedantic: bsdtar is Arch Linux’ executable name for a port of the
tarcommand that is shipped by BSDs, so it’s alsotar.
One example for it is … tar!
It’s insane that this isn’t consistent.
Any combination of
-h,-?and--helpexists between tools (from 0 to all 3 of them)
Why remember/include the algorithm? Tar can infer that. It’s just
bsdtar xf filename.*for everything. (bsdtar handles .zip as well)
When in doubt, blame zoom. The sheer amount of completely different outlandish weird bugs and glitches as well as the fact that they were told what the correct API for screen sharing on Linux is just for them to completely ignore that and do something weird, specific, niche and bad instead … I’ve never seen something like that since like Windows xp.
I’m completely convinced they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing on the frontend (app and web) and just have the latest newbie hire hack things together until it kinda works on their machine.
That’s the last three words of the article. The author didn’t miss the connection either.
I always wonder when people repeat something from the article or ask a question that’s answered in the article: did you not read it or did you just want to start a discussion about this connection and are somehow constrained in the number of words you can write per day?